If the lakers refuse to work out of the high pick n roll then imo it is useless to get any damn point guard and expect them to work wonders in this team. With the way the offense is currently run, we will see nash reduced to a glorified derek fisher who has to rely on tear drop baskets or an occasional 3 pointer... Sound familiar?

While I don't like the fact that he is old and may not play for too many years I do like him and would be better than anything we have. Yea we need to get younger but how much would it hurt to add a Kobe like player in the sense that at an old age they still can play at a HIGH level. I don't care about the defense he can make up for it on offense easily, Nash is 10x better at age 38 than both our current PG combined I'm sure he can adapt to a slower pace offense if we keep Bynum and Gasol of course. Ya'll must be crazy not to want Nash out here it comes down to this

Nash can nail jumpshots and 3 pointers 1000x better than lame ass Blake and
Nash can also penetrate easier and way WAY better than no show Sessions ( he did not show up for the playoffs).

Also remember Nash played with Amare a big man and they mesh together well many times Nash would drive pump fake and draw double teams finding easy buckets for Amare could u imagine how easy he would get Gasol and Bynum points in the paint?? that of course if we keep them...

Kidd defended three positions last year, sometimes jumping over on LeBron in the Finals, when Marion was out of the game (and you're leaving out Marion, who was nearly as good of a defender as Chandler, just overlooked). Chandler, Marion and Kidd were the reason Dallas was such a great defensive team...and if you needed any sort of proof that Marion and Kidd were huge for them, just know that the Mavericks were 8th in total defense this year (and that's without Chandler), the same ranking they were last season, yet with a better defensive ranking this season (actually kind of surprises me).

Taking a look at defensive numbers and just the way they play in general:

Of course, CJ Watson isn't going to be a legitimate starter, and we aren't getting Derrick Rose (among others), but those are a few defensively-talented PG's out there (sure I'm missing a couple).

Nash also runs a seven-second uptempo offense, very pick and roll heavy when he's not pushing the break.

So if we were to get Nash, we're going to have to do more than just bring him in. This team can't run like that.

Pretty limited list of PGs out there that play good defense.

Which of those are coming our way? I've wanted Bledsoe all along, but unfortunately, he's a Clipper. Rubio isn't going anywhere. Nor is Hill. I doubt the Hawks give up Teague considering it took them over a decade to get a PG. Shumpert just tore his ACL. Rubio isn't getting traded, and also just tore his ACL. We seem to have made strong efforts at obtaining Lowry, but wound up with Sessions.

I doubt we get Nash. Lakers are going to be linked to tons of names between now and the trading deadline. It's how writers get web-site hits.

But, if we get him, I don't think we are getting him without doing anything else. It won't be our only move. I think we're looking at an overhaul in several areas, if possible, and Nash would simply be one part of.

And even then, if he's our only option this off-season, if nothing else is available - I take him over Sessions/Blake in a heart beat.

We seem to have made strong efforts at obtaining Lowry, but wound up with Sessions.

Well, I'm not sure if it was really published as much as it should have been...but part of why we didn't land Lowry was because of his health at the time. The other reason why was because the Rockets were uncertain about Dragic, who may have changed their mind since then. Lowry's numbers fell back down to Earth, after he started looking like an all-star PG, and Houston may have realized he's not the PG they are looking for.

LA will probably make another run for him this summer.

I doubt we get Nash. Lakers are going to be linked to tons of names between now and the trading deadline. It's how writers get web-site hits.

But, if we get him, I don't think we are getting him without doing anything else. It won't be our only move. I think we're looking at an overhaul in several areas, if possible, and Nash would simply be one part of.

And even then, if he's our only option this off-season, if nothing else is available - I take him over Sessions/Blake in a heart beat.

The only thing I don't want to see happen is us turning our frontcourt into a bunch of shooters that play little to no defense, the hybrids that can run with him, spot up and rarely get into the post. As good as Nash has been over the years, I could probably make a case that he may have hurt Amare's development a bit, basically turning him into a pick and roll player, and one that never really learned how to polish his back-to-the-basket game.

If we somehow land Dwight Howard AND Nash (which is one of the biggest reaches I've posted, don't think that will happen), then yeah...I have no problem with it, because Howard won't allow anyone to take Nash off the dribble 30+ minutes a game. But, if we trade Drew (we would more than likely have to, if we bring in Nash, because Drew's game doesn't compliment his system at all...we saw Shaq in Phoenix), we're going to have to get someone that can make Nash an effective player (one that comes off of P&R's or a stretch big).

I mean...I'm sure Kobe, Dirk, Gasol and Nash would be nasty to play against, but it would instantly be the oldest four in the league, and our defensive rating would be...well, scary bad.

If we somehow land Dwight Howard AND Nash (which is one of the biggest reaches I've posted, don't think that will happen), then yeah...I have no problem with it, because Howard won't allow anyone to take Nash off the dribble 30+ minutes a game. But, if we trade Drew (we would more than likely have to, if we bring in Nash, because Drew's game doesn't compliment his system at all...we saw Shaq in Phoenix), we're going to have to get someone that can make Nash an effective player (one that comes off of P&R's or a stretch big).

And to be honest with you, that is pretty much where my head was at.

If we have Dwight, then I don't worry as much about Nash's defense. (Hence, the Kidd reference, even if not a perfect comparison).

Part B is, if we can't get anything else at all, then I'd gladly take Nash for a year, because he's an upgrade and would at least give us a puncher's chance, something we lacked with Sessions.

I'll continue to stand by what I said about us needing Dwight Howard to make up for Nash's defensive liabilities (again, his defense is worse than Derek Fisher's), but at this point, if we don't get Howard...it's whatever.

I don't like Nash with Drew, because it will most certainly limit what our new PG is going to be able to do off of those pick and rolls, and I would much rather have Dwight not only for the defense, but because he's so quick to get to the rim and can jump over anyone. However, Nash is a true PG, and he is one of the best shooters in NBA history, so instead of standing here and saying that I'm desperate for the Lakers to build a championship team around Kobe (as he's reaching the end of his career), I'm just going to say that we need the help.